Political Organisation of Mexican Left Parties (PRD

Persuasive discourse and the political-rhetorical apologia of
Mexican left-wing candidates1
Antonio Zavala2
School of Communication
Universidad Panamericana Mexico.
Abstract
Through critical discourse analysis, this paper explores the congruence
between speech, actions and ideological principles of the Mexican left party
candidates (Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas and Andrés Manuel López Obrador). It also
determines a possible interpretation of the elections results and their defeat
arguments during the Mexican transition (2000-2012). The main problem is a lack
of institutional arrangements and an uncertain electoral process during many
years, all of them originated by unrepresentative and ineffective governments
where citizen’s identity, values and confidence are weak or simply nonexistent.
Trust between political and Mexican society has not been achieved and is built on
the basis of a democratic discourse, which is not consolidated yet, mainly
because of the rhetoric expressed by political parties and their candidates
after the presidential election.
This happens since 2000, when the party in power, with an ideology of the
center-left (PRI) lost the election and pass the power to the conservative party
(PAN), as of this date there have been three presidential elections a period
best known as democratic transition. During this period the Mexican left party has
repeatedly relied on civil society organizations as a tool of political
resistance where Mexican democracy is exhibited as indeterminated and
never able to settle legitimacy problems. At the same time, public opinion about
democracy is clearly on crisis. The National Regeneration Movement (MORENA)
was created in 2006 on the grounds of defenses and reconstruction of electoral
political legitimacy in Mexico, after what they called: “The 2006 electoral fraud”. In
the beginning, this organization served to loser former presidential candidate of
the left, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, to keep a permanent political campaign.
But it was in 2011 when López Obrador presents his electoral project for 2012,
which highlights the participation of representatives of the movement in electoral
positions. It also indicates that MORENA will officially become NGO from October
2011; at this moment, he also announced his final separation from the PRD (the
main left party in Mexico) and started the registration process as a civil society
organization. Finally, on September 10, 2012, the former presidential candidate
announced his separation from the left political parties and the transformation of
civil society movement (MORENA) into a new political force.
1 Paper for ECPR Joint Sessions, panel on ‘Political Organisation in Transformation? The
Impact of State Regulation on Parties, Interest Groups and NGOs in Advanced Democracies’,
11-15 April 2014. Disclaimer: This document is a summary of a more extensive investigation of
350 pages, so some points may be omitted or not getting enough explained.
2 Associate Professor & Director of Postgraduate Studies of the School of Communication,
Universidad Panamericana, Campus Mexico. [email protected]
1 Rhetoric has been practiced throughout history, since the Greeks Aristotle and
Plato. Today, four possible uses of rhetoric have been defined within this
discipline: to persuade, to inform, to seek truth and to entertain. The objective of
rhetoric is to transmit information and the scope and goal of persuasion. This
requires an audience that trusts the speaker so as to result in a call to action.
One of the latest developments in this field of research is the Theory of Critical
Discourse Analysis which has its roots primarily in the Frankfurt School of
Jürgen Habermas, as well as in the school of English criticism, in Basil
Bernstein, in the sociolinguistics line and in the works on discourse analysis
carried out by Foucault and Pêcheux in France and by Gramsci in Italy.
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) focuses on the characteristics in play of a
context in all of the attributes of a social situation subject to study that can
influence the production of both written and oral discourse. Under this
perspective, the characteristics of the context are relevant in comprehending
the discourse. It is fundamental to be aware that CDA analyzes the discursive
dimension of the abuse of power as well as the injustice and inequality resulting
from it, and not the reverse.
CDA has a hint of counter power that focuses on the study of unacceptable
actions indicating the abuse of power and revealing domination; in a way, it
reveals a perspective of resistance and solidarity. This is interesting because it
allows us to identify what kind of people hold power and the type of abuse
which results from this power, on the basis of discourse analysis, the actors
which hold power and the dominating groups which have access to
manipulation (considering there is not free access to the media), from the
president up to the leaders of opinion who control the political discourse.
The analysis goes beyond a descriptive and linguistic analysis; it involves
understanding the forms as well as the social and political problems of a society
and focuses on the idea of abuse of power determining who has access to
structures of communication legitimized by society.
Thus, communication becomes the principal resource of dominating groups and
discourse becomes a power to control the actions of others. It is a control of
intentions by means of persuasion. In this way, confidence between political
interlocutors and Mexican society has not yet been achieved and, at the same
time, it has been built upon the foundations of a democratic discourse that has
not yet been consolidated precisely due to the rhetoric used by political parties
and candidates after presidential elections.
This is the case of the Mexican left which employs a post-electoral democratic
discourse (in the case of candidates Cuauhtemoc Cardenas in 1994-2000 and
2 Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador in 2006-2012) based primarily on rhetorical
apologia, a communication practice aimed at gaining the support of internal
groups of the Mexican left, as well as of the population in general in the context
of the electoral defeat.
As of the year 2000, there have been three presidential elections within the socalled democratic transition. On the three occasions, the dissident party has
been the left, particularly in the last two elections in which their approximation
towards the defeat occurs from a critical perspective, focusing on the way in
which discourse is used to establish and legitimize their positions or practice
and resist –without using fixed methods– their main goal of accessing power.
In order to better comprehend how the discourse of the Mexican left-wing party
(PRD) works and what kind of rhetorical representations and apologia styles
were used by the defeated political parties and candidates in the elections over
the past two decades, it is essential to identify the interests in the official
discourse of the Mexican left and how the interests of the party converge and
diverge with those of their candidates.
The foundation of the discourse of the left and particularly of Cardenas and
Lopez Obrador during the period of democratic transition in Mexico is defined
and limited to the existence of fraud in such a way that transition and
democracy in Mexico shall never be a constant. In any case, they rely on the
discussion and continuous debate of an unfinished democratic reform that
never concluded.
Another important question to pose is what kind of rhetorical representations
and apologia styles were used by defeated political parties and candidates in
order to maintain legitimacy regarding party aspirations in the immediate future
(the foundation of the next electoral discourse).
The process of constructing meaning and interpretation in the text places great
emphasis on the struggle for ideological power and an attempt to transfer it to
public opinion by employing two concepts: hope and fraud, both of which have
enormous repercussions in the candidates’ rhetorical apologia. In terms of
modality, both employ a propositional type (epistemic) of the exhortative type
with the intention of influencing (reasoning) the audience to induce an active
response in the interlocutor, in this case the electorate. The particularity of
these arguments is important because it occurs during post electoral moments,
which allows us to deduce that the rhetoric of campaigns persists even after the
legal process has concluded.
The rhetoric of both candidates leads us to the recurring consideration of the
association between Mexican history, national heroes and their own political
3 careers that reinforce the use of a propositional-exhortative modality with the
intention of inducing an active response in the electorate.
On the other hand, the analysis of lexical-semantic micro strategies shows that
discursive propositions are always charged and simultaneously descriptivedisguised; in other words, they allude to emotionally-charged acts of the past in
order to induce the acceptance of causes or, at the very least, an aversion for
certain elements included in this discourse.
Extra linguistic references of discourse are based primarily on “facts” or the
“state” of things in a social, economic and political sense by relying on distinct
meanings.
In particular, Cuauhtemoc Cardenas employs designation, addressing taboo
subjects within Mexican public opinion whereas Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador
does it primarily through presupposition, by denouncing the groups in political
and economic power as responsible for the nation’s problems.
It is especially noteworthy the way the concept of fraud is employed. For
Cardenas, it is a result of the imposition of presidential power whereas for
Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador it is tied to the power wielded by the country’s
influential groups, specifically Salinas de Gortari and the economic groups tied
to him.
Associations are forms of discourse that can be found in the discourse of both
candidates; some of the associations expressed are atemporal, although many
of them respond to and reference a specific moment of Mexican reality.
Cardenas:
(… ) In the world, political change towards democracy does not occur
without sacrifices of the people. Systems that change, governments
which are substituted a few days or weeks ago appeared to be strong,
unalterable. These are lessons repeated by history. This could already
be seen in the era of the Porfiriato in 1908 in the interview with Creelman
and in the Centennial celebrations of 1910.
Changes in society and in political and economic systems occur when
exploitation and misery become excessive, when oppression impedes
political expression and denies authentic representation, when wealth is
increasingly concentrated in less and less hands. They also occur when
the people become aware of the strength that lies in their unity, when this
4 collective consciousness leads to mobilizations, when the latter convince
or are imposed. 3
AMLO: The deep-rooted tradition of electoral fraud.
There are sufficient historical antecedents to be able to conclude that
Mexico is one the countries with the greatest tradition in electoral fraud.
Perhaps it is more accurate to say that we rarely –if ever- have had true
democracy.
During three centuries of colonial domination, Spain designated Viceroys
and these, in turn, designated those who governed the provinces, the socalled “greater mayors”. In the elections of 1828 to substitute Guadalupe
Victoria, Mexico’s first independent president, followers of the liberal
candidate, Vicente Guerrero, did not recognize the victory of the
conservative candidate, Manuel Gomez Pedraza, arguing that the
elections -carried out at the time in state legislatures- had been
manipulated and representatives had ignored the wishes of the majority
of the people.
Since then, neither federalists nor centralists, liberals or conservatives
have been able to carry out free, clean and authentic elections.4 (…)
With the arrival to power by force of Porfirio Díaz, the possibility of
establishing a true democratic republic became even more unattainable.
5
(…) General Cardenas was the only governing revolutionary who
professed a deep love for his people and nation.6
The rhetoric of both lead us to conclude that by associating Mexican history,
national heroes and their own political careers, they reinforce the propositionalexhortative modality with the intention of inducing a more active response in the
electorate.
In the analysis of rhetorical-argumentative micro strategies, rhetorical structures
frequently vary depending on the forum and the audience. However, similarities
between the two can be emphasized with the most marked difference lying in
historical self-justification. Cardenas practically never relies on this resource
whereas AMLO frequently creates the idea in public opinion that he forms part
of a “caudillismo”.
3
Cardenas Solorzano, C. Nace una esperanza, Editorial Nuestro Tiempo, Mexico 1990, pg 19.
Lopez Obrador, A. M. No decir adios a la esperanza, Editorial Grijalbo, Mexico, 2012, pg 65.
5
Lopez Obrador, A.M. ibid., pag. 67.
6
Lopez Obrador, A.M. ibid., pag. 72.
6
Lopez Obrador, A.M. ibid., pag. 73. 4
5 Cardenas
• Condemnation of acts and abuses resulting from the excessive
concentration of power in the President
• Accusation of third-party interests (foreigners)
• Proposition of civility and the respect for votes in Mexico
• Elimination of the excessive concentration of power in the President
• A call to action (forming of the PRD or other)
AMLO
•
•
•
•
•
Condemnation of corruption and abuse of groups in power
Association of AMLO with historic figures (self-justification) or accusation
of aggressions towards his person (non-physical)
Condemnation of mechanisms used to buy social will
A call to the struggle or civil resistance
The creation of new institutions (Morena or others)
On the other hand, the designation of social actors (labelling) is always carried
out in a negative and derogatory manner towards the common enemy; with
Cardenas, it is towards the president and foreign interests; with AMLO, it is
towards the ruling PRI political party and the groups in power.
Positioning of the point of view is carried out through declarations based on
suppositions aimed at reinforcing the legitimacy of the speaker aligning the
subject in question with calls to action which consist of defending the vote, the
creation of new electoral figures and the direct struggle against the president or
the groups in power in Mexico.
Reasoning is based on the justification of their own personal attributes, in their
historical legacy of “caudillismo” and on the imputation of negative actions, facts
and values of the common enemy.
In the case of calls to action aimed at mitigating the facts, these are practically
non-existent and generally tend to intensify situations that allow for the
formation of groups allied to their causes. In other words, heroic “caudillismo”
appears upheld in the collective historical memory of Mexicans as a way of
involving public opinion.
The circular nature of arguments frequently employed to approach a matter
from different angles is revealed in topics addressed in the discourse: those of
history, authority, threat, urgency and justice. In contrast, those of charge,
number and definition are used much less.
6 We can affirm that fallacies in linguistics are varied. Furthermore, the discourse
of the two left-wing candidates in Mexico contains high-level fallacies, leaving a
very narrow and partial vision of the facts and the post-electoral discourse.
The problems of the excessive use of fallacies in the electoral discourse of
Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador arise when this model becomes a belief/dogma
among his followers and, judging from the evidence, as a result, these fallacies
multiply in a malign way. They are not manifest in the same manner with
Cuauhtemoc Cardenas, whose discourse relies more on matters of party
ideology than on cultural stereotypes, as occurs in the former.
A common fallacy implemented is that of argumentum as populum /reasoning
for the people, with an exhortation to the majority appealing to that which is
popular, to popular prejudice, biases, feelings, enthusiasm and attitudes of the
masses with the aim of inducing approval rather than a rational support of the
idea. Likewise, the fallacy of consensus /Gentium is employed; that is, their
vision is the truth on the basis that the majority of the people believe there really
did exist a fraud.
The analysis of other semantic structures, movements and strategies shows
that ambiguity is a particularly important semantic form, as it frequently appears
in the discourse of both Cuauhtemoc Cardenas and Andres Manuel Lopez
Obrador.
The objective of playing with the meaning is employed, particularly when it
refers to campaign promises. Contrast, comparison and illustration are
systematically the most common forms of the different verbalized configurations
in discourse present in semantic structures, movements and strategies. The use
of these three semantic forms provides a foundation for argument and counter
argument, implications that are generally negative.
Comparisons are drawn primarily between groups of individuals and the
plurality. For example, Cuauhtemoc Cardenas frequently tries to demonstrate
the degree or amount of power held by foreign interests (of very few) on a first
level and compares it with that of Mexicans, on a second level. In other words,
foreign interests represent the individuals and the total sum of impoverished
Mexicans represents the plurality. As for intertextuality and perspective, we can
safely say that these mechanisms are rarely employed.
Finally, the analysis of apologias in political rhetoric show that denial and
evasion of responsibility are strategies aimed at diminishing the offensiveness
of the electoral defeat. The result of these strategies suggests that candidates
always acted in good faith. In spite of this, the end result was not the desired
7 one (victory), resulting in negative consequences that had already been
denounced as a possibility.
These strategies are particularly directed at interest groups with the goal of
minimizing the scope of the defeat, clearly differentiating between the rest of the
electorate (followers of other political parties).
As for the strategy that consists of reducing or minimizing the magnitude of the
offense and the facts, it is oriented towards differentiation-comparison and is
combined with the strategy of directly attacking the other actors involved in
order to reduce the opponent’s credibility.
The implementation of corrective actions is, undoubtedly, the least frequently
employed of Benoit’s strategies given that self-proclamation by the offended
party doesn’t allow for the carrying out of a series of commitments, such as
admitting campaign errors or simply accepting defeat, since this is looked upon
as a a threat to the positive “caudillo” image of the candidate. Finally, the
mortification strategy based on admitting responsibility and asking for
forgiveness is completely non-existent in both Cuauhtemoc Cardenas’ and
Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador’s discourse.
This study did not find in the apologia strategies of Cuauhtemoc Cardenas or
Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador an attempt to offer an explanation or account of
electoral results in a positive tone with the aim of reducing the threat to social
order to a minimum. On the contrary, their offer for damage repair to democracy
lies in the promise to permanently intensify the struggle.
The final line of questioning in this research is aimed at identifying interests in
the official discourse of the Mexican left (PRD) and how they converge and/or
diverge with the interests of the party in the discourses of their candidates.
The effects of Cardenas’ and Lopez Obrador’s political rhetoric are greater
during years of presidential elections because the candidates have a channel
for transmitting their points of view regarding Mexican democracy. It is
interesting to note how invasive institutional practices are detected and
developed by parties and candidates who rhetorically justify specific
interpretations regarding the anticipated result of the electoral process in course
(defeat by fraud) and upon which they will base their post electoral actions.
As a result of the instrumentation of this rhetoric, leadership capacities of both
candidates were able to develop greater appeal for voters. It is even plausible
that their personalities distanced them from the ideological legacies of their
origin and from the label of liberal candidates, thus enabling them to claim to be
considered “caudillos” as a way of eluding electoral results.
8 This does not mean that electoral authorities were not respected and complied
with (aside from acts of civil resistance expressed at every moment). However,
a negative, moral assessment did come into effect that was used to reason and
construct the party identity of new political institutions in the country such as
PRD and MORENA. However, I think one must be careful not to consider these
actions as widespread attitudes within the Mexican left, particularly based on
such a small sample of two cases.
Knowledge obtained in this research is limited to identifying practical problems
posed in discourse and the use of political rhetorical apologia to move Mexican
citizens and institutions in the context of the complexity of contemporary
democratic processes towards interests created by the candidates themselves,
who are not willing to reduce their own political quota of power.
This necessarily leads us to once again pose a question which is fundamental
for a transitional democracy (as in the case of Mexico): Is it possible for a void
to arise in democracy in the face of the ambivalence and cynicism of political
discourse if we consider that the legitimacy of democratic states resides
formally and symbolically in the possibility of choice -through free competitionbetween parties and managerial elites designed to guarantee the power of
citizens over the government?
Undoubtedly, one must not underestimate the role of interests created by
different political positions within political campaigns. However, it would seem
that the commodification of electoral processes has translated into the loss of
power of citizens, when actually the contrary should happen, leading towards
an empowering of the electorate over their governing bodies.
This void produces doubts and, consequently, political rhetoric only holds
negative conceptions and is considered object of specialized manipulation
wherein the discourse alters or interchanges party and ideological values for the
sake of benefitting a select few “Caudillos”. This is not a recent perception and
has been denounced since the birth of rhetoric described in Chapter 2 of this
research.
The attempt to understand the discourses of Cuauhtemoc Cardenas and
Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador is particularly relevant because, in spite of the
inherent problems and contradictions condemned in the electoral processes of
the Mexican democratic transition, they are both able to appeal to the masses
by using a discourse which offers a better, more just and more effective form of
government where there is no alternative, where tyranny and oligarchy cannot
produce the blend of freedom and equality promised by democracy.
9 Finally, we must ask if political parties in Mexico are ideologically prepared to
face defeat. In response to the above, we can conclude that the distance
between the institutional discourse (post electoral) and the political ideologies of
the candidates is very narrow. Therefore, they are not capable of positioning
themselves ideologically to accept defeat. For them, winning the elections is the
only way for there to be a true democracy.
It is evident that partial changes in Mexican democracy are acknowledged
within the political discourse of the candidates. However, they condemn new
problems and challenges that have arisen from the power and domination
represented by the groups in power in Mexico, whether foreign in nature as
condemned by Cuauhtemoc Cardenas or internally as claimed by Andres
Manuel Lopez Obrador.
To prove the hypothesis that post electoral democratic discourse of Mexican
left-wing candidates Cuauhtemoc Cardenas (1994-2000) and Andres Manuel
Lopez Obrador (2006-2012) is based fundamentally on the rhetoric of apologia,
the relation between the discourse, actions and ideological principles of the
party whose ultimate goal is to maintain power as opposition which
encompasses the creation and the emerging development of new political
institutions to legitimize and justify decisions and post electoral political actions
beyond winning the election as the only political party of the left in Mexico.
This analysis integrated the CDA 7 and the Image Restoration Theory 8 that
contains a variety of focuses and considerations and therefore, does not
consider a sole model for the analysis of political texts of both candidates.
The Image Restoration Theory is flexible as it can embody many variations and
combinations of available strategies for self-defence: denial, evading
responsibility, reducing offensiveness, corrective action and mortification.
The theory is based on objective knowledge centred on communication and is
inscribed within the widest context. At certain moments, it can be limited by
actual language and mental representations and can even lead to the
generation of an erroneous interpretation.
I would like to point out that this theory allows us to identify certain clichés that
anticipate a typology of strategies and the actions and conduct of candidates
before and after elections. This undoubtedly generates an understanding and a
series of important considerations and the reflection and need to participate in
image restoration in discourse (text), always taking into account that the key
7 Based on the approach of Teun Van Dijk, see bibliography.
8
See William Benoit. 10 point here is the perception of the public in the discussion of a persuasive
attack, either in an offensive act or in the search for those responsible of this act,
in the case of fraud.
Therefore, the results found lead us once again to the facet of negative,
manipulating and ambivalent rhetoric discussed regarding the intentionality of
the discourse of Cuauhtemoc Cardenas and Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador.
This exercise identifies and reveals levels of communicative rationality aspired
to by the candidates in their discourse and reveals techniques implemented in
electoral campaigns that frequently employed rhetorical forms tending to close
the debate rather than broaden it. Therefore, the idea of rethinking Mexican
democracy, the discourse of the Mexican left was in every sense an exercise
incapable of pushing contemporary democracy towards a deliberative
democracy where widespread support of the entire political spectrum has been
used as a raison of been argument in favour of guaranteeing the interests
created by certain leaderships within the Mexican left and which try to limit the
operation of the parties of this ideological wing and the quota political power
they already hold within them.
In this way, the permanent institutional channelling of the concept of freedom of
democracy grants them the opportunity to influence the public opinion debate
and through the disciplined use of reactive rhetoric and apologia in the face of
fraud, they design the necessary arsenal to create and administrate the
construction of new political institutions (i.e.parties) which guarantee continuity
in the national political arena, beyond the possibility of winning the election itself.
Through these arguments we can conclude that the candidates were aware of
their personal linguistic choices from an ideological and cultural point of view, of
their followers and knowingness, so the candidates of the left, Cuauhtemoc
Cardenas and Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, created power relations and
ideology at the level of political text of the presidential campaigns which differed
from the approach of winning the election.
A detailed exposition of the different motivations and regarding the logic within
which the discourse of the two main political actors of the left is produced in the
context of the presidential elections of the transition in Mexico will hopefully
spark future research regarding the polarization of discourse and the discussion
regarding the rhetorical and political borders as a source for the construction of
political identities.
Furthermore, they can be the starting point for the in–depth analysis of apologia
strategies in the rhetoric of candidates of different schools of thought within the
political arena.
11 Bibliography
Aguayo, Sergio. (2010). La transición en México una historia documental 1910-2010, El Colegio
de México, Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Benoit, W.L. (1982). Richard M. Nixon’s rhetorical strategies in his public statements on
Watergate. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 47, 192–211.
Benoit, W.L. (1995a). Accounts, excuses, and apologies: A theory of image restoration
strategies. Albany: State University of New York, SUNY Press.
Benoit, W.L. (1995b). Sears’ repair of its auto service image: Image restoration discourse in the
corporate sector. Communication Studies, 46.
Benoit, W.L. (1997a). Hugh Grant’s image restoration discourse: An actor apologizes.
Communication Quarterly, 45.
Benoit, W.L. (1997b). Image repair discourse and crisis communication. Public Relations
Review, 23.
Benoit, W.L. (2000). Another visit to the theory of image restoration strategies. Communication
Quarterly, 48.
Benoit, W.L. (2006a). Image repair in President Bush’s April 2004 news conference. Public
Relations Review, 32.
Benoit, W.L. (2006b). President Bush’s image repair effort on Meet the Press: The complexities
of defeasibility. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 34.
Benoit, W.L., & Anderson, K. K. (1997). Blending politics and entertainment: Dan Quayle versus
Murphy Brown. Southern Communication Journal, 62.
Benoit, W.L., & Brinson, S. L. (1994). AT&T: Apologies are not enough. Communication
Quarterly, 42.
Benoit, W.L., & Brinson, S. L. (1999). Queen Elizabeth’s image repair discourse: Insensitive
royal or compassionate queen? Public Relations Review, 25.
Benoit, W.L., & Czerwinski, A. (1997). A critical analysis of USAir’s image repair discourse.
Business Communication Quarterly, 60.
Benoit, W.L., & Hanczor, R. S. (1994). The Tonya Harding controversy: An analysis of image
restoration strategies. Communication Quarterly, 42.
Benoit, W.L., & McHale, J. P. (1999). Kenneth Starr’s image repair discourse viewed in 20/20.
Communication Quarterly, 47.
Benoit, W.L., & Nill, D. M. (1998a). A critical analysis of Judge Clarence Thomas’ statement
before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Communication Studies, 39.
Benoit, W.L., & Nill, D. M. (1998b). Oliver Stone’s defense of JFK. Communication Quarterly, 46.
12 Benoit, W.L., Gullifor, P., & Panici, D. A. (1991). Reagan’s discourse on the Iran-Contra affair.
Communication Studies, 42.
Benoit, W. L., McHale, J. P, Hansen, G. J., Pier, P. M., & McGuire, J. P. (2003). Campaign
2000: A functional analysis of presidential campaign discourse. Rawman & Littlefield eds,
Lanham, MD. USA.
Bolívar Meza, R. “La Convención Nacional Democrática: el nombramiento de Andrés Manuel
López Obrador como presidente legítimo” en Revista Trabajadores, Universidad Obrera de
México
[En
línea].
México
D.F.,
disponible
en:
www.uom.edu.mx/rev_trabajadores/pdf/58/58_Rosendo_Bolivar.pdf
Cárdenas Solórzano, Cuauhtémoc. (1987) “A los miembros del Partido Revolucionario
Institucional”, 8 de marzo de 1987, Instituto de Estudios de la Revolución Democrática, Acervo
Histórico del PRD, sección Orígenes del PRD, carpeta 1; citado en Aguayo Quezada, Sergio
(2010). La transición en México una historia documental 1910-2010, El Colegio de México,
Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Cárdenas Solórzano, Cuauhtémoc. (1988). Discurso del 26 de abril de 1988, en Ciudad de
México, presentado en “Nuestra lucha apenas comienza”, Editorial Nuestro Tiempo, México,
1989.
Cárdenas Solórzano, Cuauhtémoc. (1987). Discurso durante la XIII Asamblea Nacional del
Partido Revolucionario Institucional, 4 de marzo de 1987, Instituto de Estudios de la Revolución
Democrática, Acervo Histórico del PRD, sección Orígenes del PRD, carpeta 2; Op Cit. en
Aguayo Quezada, Sergio (2010). La transición en México una historia documental 1910-2010,
El Colegio de México, Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Cárdenas Solórzano, Cuauhtémoc; Castillo, Heberto; Clouthier, Manuel J.; Ibarra de Piedra,
Rosario & Magaña, Gumersindo. (1988). “... y Carlos Salinas no quiso”, La Nación, núm. 1750,
1 de marzo de 1988, 3a de forros; citado en Aguayo Quezada, Sergio (2010). La transición en
México una historia documental 1910-2010, El Colegio de México, Fondo de Cultura
Económica
Cárdenas Cuauhtémoc (LN.FE. 88.07.06), Manuel J. Clouthier y Rosario Ibarra de Piedra,
“Llamado a la legalidad”, 6 de julio de 1988, La Nación, núm. 1759/60, 15 de julio-1 de agosto
de 1988, p. 43. Op cit en Aguayo, Sergio. (2010). La transición en México una historia
documental 1910-2010, El Colegio de México, Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1a Ed.,
Cárdenas Cuauhtémoc, Martha Anaya, 1988: el año que calló el sistema, México, Debate, 2008,
pp. 157-158; Op cit en: Aguayo, Sergio. (2010). La transición en México una historia
documental 1910-2010, El Colegio de México, Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1a Ed.
Cárdenas, Cuauhtémoc. Nace una Esperanza, Editorial Nuestro Tiempo, México 1990.
Carlo Argan, Giulio. La retórica aristotélica y el barroco, El concepto de persuasión como
fundamento de la temática figurativa barroca, traducido al español por Peter Krieger. Véase la
versión original Giulio Carlo Argan, “La Rettorica Aristotelica ed il Barocco. Il Concetto di
Persuazione come Fondamento della Tematica figurativa barocca”, Kunstchronik, n.m. 8, del
Instituto
de
Investigaciones
Estéticas,
N.M.
96,
2010,
http://www.analesiie.unam.mx/pdf/96_111-116.pdf consultado en octubre de 2012.
13 Chilton, Paul. Analysing Political Discourse. Theory and Practice. Routledge: London and N.Y.
2004. Y Chilton, Paul. “Missing Links in Mainstream CDA: Modules, Blends and the Critical
Instinct.” Ruth Wodak and Paul Chilton, eds. A New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis.
Amsterdam and Philadelphia, 2005.
Condor, S., Tileaga, C. and Billig, M., (2013). Political rhetoric. IN: Huddy, L., Sears, D.O. and
Levy, J.S. (eds.) Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Delgado, Álvaro. (2012). “Morena: Partido y movimiento” en Proceso [En línea]. México D.F.,
disponible en: www.proceso.com.mx/?p=319489
Página oficial de Andrés Manuel López Obrador. (2012). “Semblanza” en López Obrador [En
línea]. México D.F., disponible en: http://lopezobrador.org.mx/semblanza/
“Discurso pronunciado por el Lic. Jorge de la Vega Domínguez, Presidente del CEN del PRI”, 4
de marzo de 1987, en Jorge de la Vega Domínguez (pról.), Historia documental del Partido de
la Revolución, PRI, 1986-1987, tomo XIV, México, PRI-ICAP, 1988; Op.Cit. en Aguayo
Quezada, Sergio (2010). La transición en México una historia documental 1910-2010, El
Colegio de México, Fondo de Cultura Económica.
El Informador. (2012). “López Obrador proyecta a Morena como nuevo partido político” en El
Informador
[En
línea].
México
D.F.,
disponible
en:
www.informador.com.mx/mexico/2012/403566/6/lopez-obrador-proyecta-a-morena-comonuevo-partido-politico.htm
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman. Fairclough, N. (1992a). The
appropriacy of appropriateness. In N. Fairclough (Ed.), Critical language awareness. London:
Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis. London, New York: Longman, 1995.
Fairclough, Norman. Analysing Discourse. Textual Analysis for Social Research. Oxon,
Routledge, Londres 2008.
Instituto Federal Electoral. (2006). “Elección de Presidente de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos
cómputos distritales de las elecciones federales de 2006” en IFE [En línea]. México D.F.,
disponible en:
www.ife.org.mx/documentos/Estadisticas2006/presidente/nac.html
Instituto Federal Electoral. (2012). “LAS ELECCIONES DEL PRIMERO DE JULIO: CIFRAS,
DATOS,
RESULTADOS”
en
IFE
[En
línea].
México
D.F.,
disponible
en:
www.ife.org.mx/docs/IFE-v2/CNCS/CNCS-IFE-Responde/2012/Julio/Le010712/Le010712.pdf
Kress, Gunther & Van Leeuwen, Theo. Multimodal discourse. The modes and media of
contemporary communication, Arnold, Londres, 2001.
López Obrador, Andrés Manuel. (2011). “Asamblea constitutiva del Movimiento Regeneración
Nacional (MORENA)” en El Progresista [En línea]. México D.F., disponible en:
www.elprogresista.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=488:asambleaconstitutiva-del-movimiento-regeneracion-nacional-morena-&catid=38:nacional&Itemid=37
14 López Obrador, Andrés Manuel. (2012). “CARTA DIRIGIDA A QUIENES PARTICIPARÁN, A
PARTIR DEL 12 DE SEPTIEMBRE, COMO DELEGADOS EN LOS CONGRESOS
DISTRITALES, ESTATALES Y NACIONAL DE MORENA” en Página oficial de Andrés Manuel
López
Obrador
[En
línea].
México
D.F.,
disponible
en:
http://lopezobrador.org.mx/2012/09/11/carta-de-lopez-obrador-a-delegados-a-los-congresosdistritales-y-estatales-de-morena/
López Obrador, Andrés Manuel, Discurso posterior a la resolución de validez de la elección
presidencial por el Tribunal Federal Electoral. 9 de septiembre de 2012. Consultado en línea en
la página oficial de AMLO, www.amlosi.org, 5 de marzo de 2013.
López Obrador, Andrés Manuel, Discurso: Pide AMLO al presidente Obama regularizar la
situación migratoria de los mexicanos que laboran honradamente en EU. 11 de octubre de
2011. Consultado en línea en la página oficial del Instituto Nacional de Estudios Políticos A.C.,
http://inep.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4290&Itemid=196
López Obrador, Andrés Manuel. (2010). “Proyecto Alternativo de Nación: 10 puntos para lograr
el renacimiento de México” en Regeneración [En línea]. México D.F., disponible en:
www.regeneracion.mx/files/LIBRO_PRO__.pdf
López Obrador, Andrés Manuel, Discurso de cierre de campaña. 28 de junio de 2006.
Consultado en línea en El Instituto Nacional de Estudios Políticos A.C.
http://inep.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=3908, 11 de Junio de 2013.
López Obrador, Andrés Manuel, Conferencia Magistral de AMLO en la Fundación Ortega y
Gasset-Gregorio Marañón. 13 de Octubre 2011. Consultado en línea en El Instituto Nacional de
Estudios
Políticos
A.C.
http://inep.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4287&Itemid=196, 11 de Junio de
2013.
López Obrador, Andrés Manuel, Discurso posterior a la resolución de validez de la elección
presidencial por el Tribunal Federal Electoral. 9 de septiembre de 2012. Consultado en línea en
la pagina oficial de AMLO, www.amlosi.org, consultado el 5 de marzo de 2013.
López Obrador, Andrés Manuel, Discurso: Pide AMLO al presidente Obama regularizar la
situación migratoria de los mexicanos que laboran honradamente en EU. 11 de octubre de
2011. Consultado en línea en la página oficial del Instituto Nacional de Estudios Políticos A.C.,
http://inep.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4290&Itemid=196, 7 de marzo
de 2013.
López Obrador, Andrés Manuel. No decir adiós a la esperanza, Editorial Grijalbo, México 2012,
Martínez, Paris. (2011). “Morena: el nuevo movimiento de López Obrador” en Animal Político
[En línea]. México D.F., disponible en: www.animalpolitico.com/2011/01/morena-el-nuevomovimiento-de-lopez-obrador/
Mayoral, José Antonio. Figuras retóricas, ed. Síntesis, Madrid
Montalvo, Tania. (2012). “El camino que deberá recorrer Morena para ser partido político” en
CNN
México
[En
línea].
México
D.F.,
disponible
en:
http://mexico.cnn.com/nacional/2012/09/10/el-camino-que-debera-recorrer-morena-para-serpartido-politico
15 MORENA. (2012). “Proyecto de Estatuto del Movimiento Regeneración Nacional” en Página
oficial de Andrés Manuel López Obrador [En línea]. México D.F., disponible en:
http://lopezobrador.org.mx/proyecto-de-estatuto-del-movimiento-regeneracion-nacional/
Muñoz, Alma E. (2009). “Apuntalan la presencia en todo el país de la resistencia civil pacífica”
en
La
Jornada
[En
línea].
México
D.F.,
disponible
en:
www.jornada.unam.mx/2009/01/05/index.php?section=politica&article=003n1po
Muñoz Ledo, Porfirio “A los miembros del partido”, 12 de marzo de 1987, Instituto de Estudios
de la Revolución Democrática, Acervo Histórico del PRD, sección Orígenes del PRD, carpeta 1;
Op. Cit. en Aguayo Quezada,
Muñoz Ledo, Porfirio. (1986). “El PRI y la Renovación política del país”, 21 de octubre de 1986,
Instituto de Estudios de la Revolución Democrática, Acervo Histórico del PRD, sección
Dirigentes 1, carpeta 104; Op Cit. en Aguayo Quezada, Sergio (2010). La transición en México
una historia documental 1910-2010, El Colegio de México, Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1a
Ed.,
Muñoz, Juan Miguel. (2004). “Una verdad largamente esperada” en El País [En línea]. Madrid,
disponible en: http://elpais.com/diario/2004/07/11/internacional/1089496812_850215.html
Nordström, Jackie. Modality and Subordinators, John Benjamins Publishing Company,
Amsterdam / Philadelphia, 2010, página 16.
Página oficial de Andrés Manuel López Obrador. (2012). “Semblanza” en López Obrador [En
línea]. México D.F., disponible en: http://lopezobrador.org.mx/semblanza/
Perelman, Ch., Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1987). Tratado de la argumentación: la nueva retórica.
Traducido por Sevilla, Julia, Madrid: Gredos.
Price, Vincent. La Opinión Pública, Paidos, Barcelona 1994, 141 pp.
Partido de la Revolución Democrática. (S.a.). “De la alianza al partido (1988-1989)” en PRD [En
línea]. México D.F., disponible en:
www.prd.org.mx/portal/documentos/historia_PRD.pdf
Partido de la Revolución Democrática Distrito Federal. (2012). “Historia del PRD” en PRD DF
[En línea]. México D.F., disponible en:
www.prddf.org.mx/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1&Itemid=3
Pérez, Ciro y Muñoz, Alma E. (2008). “Presenta ANDRÉS MANUEL LÓPEZ OBRADOR nuevo
plan de acción: defenderá petróleo y economía popular” en La Jornada [En línea]. México D.F.,
disponible en: www.jornada.unam.mx/2008/10/31/index.php?section=politica&article=011n1pol
“Plataforma común del Frente Democrático Nacional”,
Estudios de la Revolución Democrática, Acervo Histórico
carpeta 3; Op. Cit. en Aguayo Quezada, Sergio (2010).
documental 1910-2010, El Colegio de México, Fondo de
319
12 de enero de 1988, Instituto de
del PRD, sección Orígenes del PRD,
La transición en México una historia
Cultura Económica, 1a Ed., pp. 318-
Ramos, Jorge. (2006). “López Obrador convoca a convención democrática” en El Universal [En
línea]. México D.F., disponible en: www.eluniversal.com.mx/nacion/141764.html
16 Reyes, Mariusa. (2006). “México: un país, dos presidentes” en BBC Mundo [En línea]. Londres,
disponible en: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/latin_america/newsid_5353000/5353370.stm
Robert P. Abelson, “Modes of Resolution of Belief Dilemmas.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 3,
1959 página 344. Consultado en JSTOR liga: http://www.jstor.org/stable/172752, Consultado
en enero de 2013
Rodríguez Araujo, Octavio. (2012). “De la Madrid y el fraude de 1988” en La Jornada [En línea].
México D.F., disponible en: www.jornada.unam.mx/2012/04/05/opinion/016a1pol
Ramos, Jorge. (2006). “López Obrador convoca a convención democrática” en El Universal [En
línea]. México D.F., disponible en: www.eluniversal.com.mx/nacion/141764.html
SDPnoticias. (2010). “Presenta ANDRÉS MANUEL LÓPEZ OBRADOR nuevo Proyecto
Alternativo de Nación” en SDPnoticias [En línea]. México D.F., disponible en:
www.sdpnoticias.com/sdp/contenido/nacional/2010/07/25/1003/1084384
Terra noticias. (2011). “MORENA será asociación civil a partir del 2 de octubre” en Terra [En
línea]. México D.F., disponible en: http://noticias.terra.com.mx/mexico/politica/morena-seraasociacion-civil-a-partir-del-2-deoctubre,67c831771f8b3310VgnVCM4000009bf154d0RCRD.html
Tribunal Electoral del Poder Judicial de la Federación. (2006). “Dictamen relativo al cómputo
final de la elección de Presidente de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Declaración de validez de
la elección y Presidente electo” en TEPJF [En línea]. México D.F, disponible en:
http://portal.te.gob.mx/sites/default/files/publicaciones/file/Dictamen_relativo_eleccion_presiden
cial_2006.pdf
Torres, Mauricio. (2012). “12 rostros a seguir en la próxima legislatura, Manuel Camacho Solís”
en
CNN
México
[En
línea].
México
D.F.,
disponible
en:
http://mexico.cnn.com/nacional/2012/07/11/manuel-camacho-solis
Van Dijk Teun Text and Context. London: Longman 1977.
Van Dijk Teun A. Contextual knowledge management in discourse production. A CDA
perspective. Published in Ruth Wodak and Paul Chilton (Eds.), A New Agenda in (Critical)
Discourse Analysis. (pp. 71-100) Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2005
Van Dijk Teun A. Critical Discourse Studies; A sociocognitive Approach In Ruth Wodak &
Michael Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis. (pp. 62-85). London: Sage, 2009.
Van Dijk Teun A. Discourse analysis as ideology analysis. In: C. Schäffner & A. Wenden (Eds.),
Language and Peace . (pp. 17-33). Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishin,. 1995.
Van Dijk Teun A. Discourse and racism. In David Goldberg & John Solomos (Eds.), The
Blackwell Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies. (pp. 145-159). Oxford: Blackwell, 2002.
Van Dijk Teun A. Introduction: Discourse analysis in (mass) communication research.
Dijk, (Ed.) Discourse and Communication , 69-93, 1985. (C.5.)
In: van
Van Dijk Teun A. Introduction: Levels and dimensions of discourse analysis. In: van Dijk, (Ed.)
Handbook of Discourse Analysis (C3) 1985. (C.3.), Vol. 2., pp. 1-11
Van Dijk Teun A. Narrative macrostructures. Cognitive and logical foundations. PTL 1, 1976
17 Van Dijk Teun A. Politics, ideology and discourse. Elsevier Encyclopedia of Language and
Linguistics. Volume on Politics and Language (Ruth Wodak, Ed.), pp. 728-740. 2005.
Van Dijk Teun A. Power and the news media. In D. Paletz (Ed.), Political Communication and
Action. (pp. 9-36). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 1995.
Van Dijk Teun A. Recalling and summarizing complex discourse. In: W. Burghardt & K. Holker,
(Eds.) Textverarbeitung/ Text Processing . Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1979, 49-118.
Van Dijk Teun A. Semantic discourse analysis. In: Teun A. van Dijk, (Ed.) Handbook of
Discourse Analysis, vol. 2. (pp. 103-136). London: Academic Press, 1985.
Van Dijk Teun A. Semantic Macro-Structures and Knowledge Frames in Discourse
Comprehension. In Marcel Adam Just and Patricia A. Carpenter (Eds.) Cognitive Processes in
Comprehension. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1977.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1983). La ciencia del texto. Barcelona: Paidós.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1990) La noticia como discurso. Comprensión, estructura y producción de la
información. Barcelona: Paidós.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1999). Ideología. Un enfoque multidisciplinario. Barcelona: Gedisa.
Van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.). (1999). Los estudios del discurso. 2 vols. Barcelona: Gedisa.
Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, Communication and fallacies: A
pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.,
Publishers.
Wodak R., Meyer, M. (2001). Methods of Critical Discourse analysis. London: Sage.
Wodak, R. (1989). Language, power and ideology: studies in political discourse. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Wodak, R. (2002). Discourse and Politics: the rhetoric of exclusion. En R.
Wodak, R. The Discourse of Politics in Action. Basingstoke: Palgrave, Macmillan, Londres 2009
Wodak, R. (2007). Pragmatics and Critical Discourse Analysis: A crossdisciplinary Inquiry.
Pragmatics & Cognition, 15(1), 203- 225.
Woldenberg, José (2012). Historia mínima de la transición democrática en México. El Colegio
de México, 1a Ed.
18